Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

[Ben Collins]

> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Spotted-by: Joe Hacker <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> As asking submitters to sign off on modified versions
> of their patch would be silly overhead IMO.

That's fine with me too. I could definitely see there being 2 or 3
headers that mid-level developers could use to identify the origin of a
patch and they could be documented.

Linus could just concern himself with atleast us subsystem-maintainers
putting the Signed-off-by on there and not worry himself about the other
headers.

Could have something like:

Spotted-by: Foo
Submitted-by: Bar
Signed-off-by: Ben Collins

And if there's a problem, Linus can come knocking on my door for fucking
up, and I'd be the bottom line responsible for the submission. Linus
need only put his confidence on a small subset of patch submitters (like
he mainly does now) doing the Signed-off-by.

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/